Jim Seybert - Strategic Planning Retreats - Strategy Audits - Executive Coaching

Companies and organizations have leaders, managers, administrators and a bunch of folks who are very skilled at the tactical sand and gravel of achieving the goals and meeting the mission.

There is an over-emphasis on the ideal of being a leader. Yes, they are out front, they set the pace and cast the vision. Without a leader human beings are destimed to wander aimlessly. But leaders aren’t the end all. They’re usually really bad at actually getting things done by themselves. And if everyone wants to lead . . .

Wally Bock wrote a very good post on the Mementor blog titled, “You Could be Management Material, If . . . ”

It reads like a page out a SimplyStrengths® or StrengthFinders® handbook. From the blog:

Do you enjoy having a say in the direction your team is going? That comes with the leadership job, but not everyone is comfortable being out front.

Do you enjoy helping other people succeed? That’s the core of a boss’s job. You have to be able to set aside your own ego and help the team and the team members do better.

Are you willing to talk to other people about their performance or behavior?It’s the part of the boss’s job that many people find stressful. If you’re willing, there are techniques that will help you do it more easily and effectively.

Are you willing to make decisions and take the consequences? That’s another thing that bosses do.

The full post has some surprising stats about the management and leadership aspirations of today’s work force.

One of the smartest things you can do is to offer a strengths assessment to your employees. I’d be more than happy to help them maximize their strengths, and your bottom line will be the better for it.

I was driving on highway 101 near Salinas, CA on Thursday when I happened upon a service truck with the company name Leadership Fumigation.

Is this some kind of service that goes into corporate board rooms and executive suites to rid the company of its management team?

Could the company by chance be owned by someone whose last name is Leadership?

Or is this a case of the whole Leadership thing finally hitting a big brick wall?

I happened across Seth Godin’s blog this morning.

Hadn’t been in a while and wanted to see what his incredible brain was up to. I’d thought of him because I intend to re-read THE DIP this weekend as I prepare for some changes in my consulting practice - but more about that in a few weeks.

Anyway - one of Seth’s recent entries he asked the question -

How often do you tweet instead of retweet? Invent rather than exploit?

His premise was an encouragement for people to step up and make things happen and the reference to Twitter worked well for me.

As I look at my TweetDeck log, there are a fair number of folks who never have anything of their own to say - unless they’re telling the world what they had for lunch or how much their feet hurt. When they do have something worth paying attention to, it’s a RT from someone else.

Zoom out and catch a wider view - everyone in the world can’t be leading or there’d be no one to follow, but for goodness sake we need more folks willing to stick their necks out, to take a chance, to suggest something different.

We all ReTweet. We all pass along something we’ve learned or experienced. The books I write are giant ReTweets of stuff I’ve learned from others, passed through my own filter and organized between covers. But, the real jewels come when someone says, does or thinks something that’s never been said, done or thought before.

Let me RT myself: RT @jimseybert - The real jewels come when someone says, does or thinks something that’s never been said, done or thought before.

My StrengthFinder themes are Ideator, Strategic, Future, Maximizer and Communication so I am inextricably drawn to new things - I can’t help it - and I am always on the lookout for people who can yank my leash into the future.

Are you one of them?

Some sounds bytes from a recent David Brooks column in the NY Times.

• Traits like being a good listener, a good team builder, an enthusiastic colleague, a great communicator do not seem to be very important when it comes to leading successful companies.
   
• Organized, dogged, anal-retentive and slightly boring people are more likely to thrive [as C.E.O.s].

• . . . extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience [do] not correlate well with C.E.O. success.

• Methodical executives at successful companies just make the same old four-door sedan, but they make it better and better.

• The C.E.O.’s that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit unidimensional. They are often not the most exciting people to be around.

I’m going to take issue with Brooks’ use of the word leader.

The people described in his piece are NOT leaders. They are managers. The title Chief Executive Officer speaks for itself. A C.E.O. is the individual most responsible for executing the company’s plans. The researchers referenced in Brooks’ piece are correct in observing that successful C.E.O.s are people who can get things done, but they miss the mark when referring to those people as leaders. 

Some leaders are good managers and some managers have leadership skills. The two skill sets are not interchangeable; they do not mean the same thing. Organizations need both types of individuals at the top. 

Beside every charismatic leader, there is someone who can get the job done and beside every successful C.E.O. there is someone with his or her head in the clouds.

From a News Release announcing further staff reductions at an organization struggling for survival:

The streamlining emphasizes the formation of high-performance teams working in a fluid structure rather than departments, a strategic approach that better takes advantage of the core strengths of each staff member to apply his or her skills and talents across projects. An increased level of responsibility, accountability, and empowerment driving the decision-making process will give team members more direct ownership of projects, therefore speeding up projects to completion, resulting in more expedient implementation for our customers.

This is a classic example of corporate mumbo jumbo and the following translation is offered as a public service:

The handful of people remaining who actually know what they’re doing will be held accountable for the mistakes of everyone else. We really don’t have a plan. Anyone can do anything with any project at anytime.

Seriously now - the people who wrote this would have described the Hindenberg crash as a “minor mishap, involving fire.”

The leadership may have a solid plan for succeeding with fewer people, and it just might work. If they do, you wouldn’t know it from reading their release. What they wrote is either an attempt to spin straw into gold or indication they really don’t have a clue how to proceed with the “streamlined” team that remains.

Big words and long sentences are often used to hide something. Avoid them. Always.

This piece from the NYT touched me as many of my clients have faced similar situations. 

I see the employer/employee relationship as a direct trade:

Workers provide their time, talent and productivity

Employers provide wages and a sense of accomplishment

The relationship is NOT a marriage, it is not expected to last forever. However, as equal partners, BOTH owe the other a complete effort. Leaders need to do everything they can to protect their most important asset, and workers must do all they can to be worthy of their pay.

That said, there are times when the relationship must end and this story puts a human face on one side we probably don’t get to see often enough.

The basis of any change effort is very simple. Beating the status quo always involves the simple formula:

When you are faced with the need to change,
you can either do things differently or
you can do a different thing.

I call it Thing One & Thing Two.  My clients are encouraged to use this as an anchor as they talk through the process of creating new realities for their organizations. When we reach a decision, I ask, “Does that represent a different thing, or a thing done differently?” The answer helps to further clarify the new idea. It also helps implement new ideas because the question contains a necessary hook to the past, known as a Change Buffer.

In a recent New York Times opinion piece, journalist Tom Brokaw broaches a controversy by suggesting there could be millions and millions of dollars saved if small local government offices would combine their efforts across municipal, county and even state boundaries. 

Having lived for years in a small Wyoming town, I see great wisdom in Brokaw’s idea.

My question to you is this:

Would doing this be Thing One or Thing Two?